Total Pageviews

Sunday, March 28, 2010

2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2161
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
CWP No.2369 of 2009
Adarsh Gupta
v.
State of Haryana, through Secretary Labour Department, Haryana, Chd. & Ors.
{Decided on 03/08/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate and Mr. Jagdev Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. D. S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Ss.25-T, 25-U, 32 and 34--Unfair Labour Practice--Complaint by Government--Transfer of workmen from place of factory to where no unit of factory is yet established--High Court shall not cause an impediment for legal action to ensure at such preliminary stage when government forms opinion about commission of offence and decide to lodge complaint--No interference called for. (Para 8)
-------------------
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 2165
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, Chief Justice
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
CWP No. 7893 of 2002
Electrohomoepathic Doctor’s Association Punjab
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 10/08/2009}
Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No. 7893 of 2002.
Mr. H.S. Sidhu, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent in CWP No. 7893 of 2002.
Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 5 to 14 in CWP No. 7893 of 2002.
Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3 in CWP No. 3261 of 2005.
Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for respondent No. 4 in CWP No. 3261 of 2005.
Mr. A.P.S. Shergill, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No. 6225 of 2007.
Mr. K.K. Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.1 in CWP No. 6225 of 2007
Mr. H.S. Sidhu, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.2 to 5 in CWP No. 6225 of 2005.
Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Ms. Jaishree Thakur, Advocate, Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 4 to 7 in CWP No. 6225 of 2007.
Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No. 7493 of 2007
Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate for respondent No.1 in CWP No. 7493 of 2007
Mr. H.S. Sidhu, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.2 to 4 in CWP No. 7493 of 2007.
Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 5 in CWP No. 7493 of 2007.
Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No. 13253 of 2007.
Mr. H.S. Sidhu, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 in CWP No. 13253 of 2007.
Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 4 in CWP No. 13253 of 2007.
Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No. 13253 of 2007.
IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial Review--Court in judicial review not possessed of expertise to examine issue of scientific and technical nature to find fault with report of committee consisting of persons of eminence
(A) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1950, S. 26--Constitution of India, 1950, Art.19(1) (9) (6)--Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 25Electro-homeopath/Electropathy system of medicine--Grant of recognition--Judicial Review--Whether a particular system of medicine requires recognition of legislation is a matter for experts or for parliament to consider and take action thereon--Court in judicial review not possessed of expertise to examine issue of scientific and technical nature to find fault with report of committee consisting of persons of eminence--Court also cannot issue any direction to legislate for purpose of grant of recognition to electro homeopathy system of medicine. (Para 17)
(B) Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 19(1) (9) (6)--Medical Council Act, 1956, S.25--Electro-homeopath/Electropathy system of medicine--Right to practice--Petitioner not qualified for registration as medical practioner under the Act--Institutions imparting knowledge, training or course leading to issuance of Diploma or certificates in electrohomeopathy also not recognized to grant such Diplomas or certificate under the Act--Medical Council Act, a regulatory enactment in term of Article 19(1) (g) (6) is in force--Therefore, petitioners cannot seek right to practice medicine except in accordance with provisions of the Act--Challenge of petitioner to circulars/orders of issued by Central/State Government to take action against Electropathy and Electro-homopathy institutions and clinics operation in area--Not Maintainable--Constitution of India, 1950, Article 19(1) (9) (6)--Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 25 (Para 22)
(C) Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 19(1) (9) (6)--Medical Council Act, 1956, S.25--Electro-homeopath/Electropathy--System of medicine--Decision to restrict or prohibit practice of electropathy could be taken by executive in exercise of executive power of State--Contention that such restrictions can be placed only by statute--Not tenable. (Paras 23, 30 & 31)
------------------
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2178
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
RSA No. 2549 of 2000 and Cross-objection No. 2-C of 2001
Baljinder Singh
v.
Lt. Col. Rattan Singh
{Decided on 10/08/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atul Gaur, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Limitation--Question whether suit is governed by Articles 65 or is barred in terms of 109--It pure question of law arising out of findings of fact recorded by learned Court below--Such question of law could always be examined even if there is no reference to such Article before learned Appellate Court
(A) Limitation Act, Art.65 &109--Sale deed--Validity of--Property sold within family to his sister in law--Fact that it was bequeathed by beneficiary to grand son of executor only with a view to affect shares of coparceners--Payment of consideration not proved--Said transactions of sale are void and sham transaction. (P. 12)
(B) Limitation Act, Art.65 &109--Question whether suit is governed by Articles 65 or is barred in terms of 109--It pure question of law arising out of findings of fact recorded by learned Court below--Such question of law could always be examined even if there is no reference to such Article before learned Appellate Court. (P. 24)
(C) Limitation Act, Art. 65 &109--Suit for possession of immovable property based on title--No challenge to alienation of ancestral property--Affected at instance of plaintiff--Defendant not alleged hostile or adverse possession to knowledge of other co-owners--Suit is within limitation in terms of Art. 65 of Limitation Act. (P. 23, 24 & 25)
----------------